Rome, Ancient Patriarchate of

BRENDA LLEWELLYN IHSSEN

By the 5th century a system of pentarchy existed among the apostolic sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Though the patriarchates of Rome and Constantinople would eventually enter into periods of dispute and eventually schism, the ancient patriarchate of Rome was, in the first millennium of Christianity, held in high regard as a significantly impor­tant see due to multiple factors: the city of Rome was an early recipient of the Christian message; Rome was an apostolic foundation; it was a city where the foremost of the apos­tles, Peter and Paul, visited; it was where they were martyred; and it is where their bodies remain to this day. Rome was also a city noted for edifying resistance to Roman oppression on the part of many Christians, for the development of poor-relief programs, for strong resistance to internal schism and heresy, for lively theological discussion, and as an early model of noteworthy leadership for the international church. All of these factors would be significant in the initial development of the ancient patriarchate of Rome and contributed to the development of papal theory.

ROMAN CHRISTIANITY AND APOSTOLIC FOUNDATION IN THE FIRST CENTURIES

As the capital, Rome was a city of primary importance in a largely urban empire that was in the process of transforming itself in the 1st century. With a population of roughly half a million inhabitants, and with both people and philosophies arriving frequently, Rome was a natural goal. Evidence suggests that Christianity arrived in the city shortly after the death of Jesus, likely arriving in the 40s due in part to the migration of Jews as merchants, immigrants, or prisoners from Syria and Palestine to the Trastevere, the Jewish quar­ter of Rome. The constant flow of individ­uals, ideas, and influence between Rome and Jerusalem attests to the close relation­ship that the two cities shared prior to the rise of Christianity, a relationship that aided in the development of an immigrant Christianity when it arrived (Vinzent 2007).

Once in Rome, Christianity appears to have organized into various small cells and house churches of predominantly Jew­ish and then Greek-speaking gentiles in a fairly rapid and reasonably stable way, to the degree that it soon was a mission force. The author of Acts claims that the followers of Jesus present at Pentecost from Rome were both “Jews and proselytes” (Acts 2.10). Further, the Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Romans, containing as it does fairly complex theology not suitable for a novice community, suggests that the recipients had by that time begun to move beyond basic organizational issues to address significant issues for the future of the Christian movement, specifically the potentially tense relationship between gen­tile converts and Jewish Christians, or even other competing Christian cells and philo­sophical schools of which, in a city of emigres, there must have been several (Vinzent 2007; Hall 2007a). Evidence for the presence of Christianity in Rome as early as the 40s can also be found in addi­tional passages in Acts (18.2–3), and exte­rior to the New Testament in the work of historian Suetonius, who wrote of Emperor Claudius’ (41–54) expulsion of “Jews from Rome because of their constant distur­bances impelled by Chrestus” (Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars II, 25) – which suggests interference in worship-related activities on the part of Jewish Christians (Brown and Meier 1983).

Each ofthe ancient patriarchates ofRome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem is traditionally held to have been founded by the most prominent among the apostles. Early sources, representing traditional stories more than hard historical data, maintain that Peter and Paul both traveled to Rome, where they established Christian communities. The New Testament evidence speaks only of Paul being in Rome (Acts 18). St. Clement of Rome (ca. 96) wrote in his Epistle to the Corinthians on behalf of the Roman Church only that Peter “went to the glorious place which was his due,” and Paul, more specif­ically, “reached the limits of the West” (I. Clement 5). Ignatius of Antioch (35–107), when making his plea to the Christians in Rome to refrain from interfering in his forthcoming martyrdom, wrote that he (Ignatius) does “not order you as did Peter and Paul” (Ignatius to the Romans 4), a statement which suggests relationship but not necessarily proximity. More specifically, Irenaeus of Lyons (135–200), writing on the importance of the succession of bishops in his treatise Against Heresies, says that this “tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3.2). While Irenaeus’ claim of apostolic foundation has been interpreted as evidence of Peter’s personal activity in Rome, what is more evident, however, is the importance that will consistently be placed on the tradition of apostolic foundation itself, as well as the meaning that the tradition will hold in suc­cessive centuries for the subsequent Roman theory of primacy. It is worth noting that while these ancient writers do not leave the historian with incontestable evidence about any extensive activity of Peter’s in Rome, they do leave the historian with evidence about Christian attitudes and structures in ancient Rome. Though there was likely at first no united single community, it was from earliest times to some degree orga­nized, it already had a developing sense of its own history, and though archeology, epigraphy, and historical records indicate that Christianity flourished in the poorer districts, there were, even by the beginning of the 2nd century, Christians in Rome who enjoyed influence among the political powers and elite members of society.

THE CHALLENGE OF PAGAN ROME AND THE ROMAN RESPONSE

In addition to this early tradition that holds Peter and Paul as central to the foundation

of Christianity in Rome, the ancient patri­archate of Rome was further enhanced by the various ways in which Christians responded to the surrounding community that threatened their religious identity. Christian intellectuals rose to the challenge of pagan apologists, whose opposition afforded them the opportunity to defend with eloquence a vigorous new faith against cults that promoted morally repulsive gods and goddesses. This apologetic process helped to shape both the public and inter­nal self-identity of Roman (and other) Christians in relation to the Greco-Roman world. The anonymous 2nd-century (allegedly Roman) author of the Epistle to Diognetus argued the superiority of Christianity over paganism, idolatry, and Judaism’s ritual rigidity, and defended the manner by which Christians live as citizens of one world but detached from it as citi­zens of another, presenting an eloquent explanation of God’s plan for salvation in light of previous human understandings of God (Hall 2007b).

For those who lacked opportunity or intellectual ability, martyrdom also pro­vided Christians the occasion to refute by use of the body what the scholarly did using their rhetorical skill (a few, such as Justin Martyr, had the opportunity for both forms of witness). Concerned and angered by what were regarded as the “sins” of an unauthorized religion, various pogroms took place to cleanse Rome and appease the authorities who were anxious to put down what they believed to be a dissident and seditious cult, or a repugnant sect of Judaism, too much like a conspiracy to be tolerated. Chief among the martyrs were Peter and Paul, but included among the many that perished in these first perse­cutions at Rome were notable figures such as Ignatius of Antioch (107), Justin Martyr (165), and Hippolytus (236). While hard historical evidence with respect to Christian foundations at the direct hands ofPeter and Paul is inconclusive, it is generally admitted that both apostles died in Rome during the purge ofEmperor Nero, who was anxious to divert suspicion for a fire that destroyed ten of the fourteen districts of Rome in 64. Senator and historian Tacitus later wrote that Nero, the first of several emperors to inflict persecutions on this new sect, attempted to suppress rumors for his own responsibility for the fire by rounding up “the notoriously depraved group who were popularly called Christians” (Annals 15.44). Later described by Eusebius as the “first heralded as a conspicuous fighter against God” (Hist. Eccl. 2.25), Nero had Christians torn to pieces by dogs or burned alive, occasioning the pity of the Roman popula­tion who were witnesses to this cruel torture (Jeffers 1991). While Tacitus says nothing of the famous apostles perishing in this purge, Eusebius writes that during Nero’s reign the apostles were murdered: “It is recorded that in his reign Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified, and the record is confirmed by the fact that the cemeteries there are still called by the names of Peter and Paul” (Hist. Eccl. 2.25). Eusebius includes in his Ecclesiastical History the valuable words of a churchman named Gaius who, in the late 2nd or early 3rd century wrote concerning their burial places that “I can point out the monuments of the victorious apostles. If you will go as far as the Vatican or the Ostian Way, you will find the monuments of those who founded this church” (Hist. Eccl. 2.25). In this passage we identify not only early public veneration of the space where the apostles were believed to be, but also clear indication that they are understood as the founders of Christianity in Rome. Further confirmation is offered by Eusebius in a letter written by Bishop Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans, who likens the two communities of Rome and Corinth as spiritually bound by apostolic foundation. However, what Rome has, that Corinth does not, is the site of the martyrdom of the apostles: “For both of them sowed in our Corinth and taught us jointly. In Italy too they taught jointly in the same city, and were martyred at the same time” (Hist. Eccl. 2.25).

Located today under an elaborate balda­chin constructed by Bernini in 1633, the orig­inal cult center of a trophy (the “Red wall” shrine) identified as that of St. Peter’s on Vatican Hill was originally quite inconspicu­ous among adjoining mausolea of adherents ofmultiple cults. Similar to Peter, Paul’s body was buried in an ancient simple tomb over which a trophy was erected, and both apost­les were venerated together in an equally unremarkable cult center located underneath catacombo San Sebastiano on the Via Appia, where the veneration of their relics (or at least a portion of them) was translated temporarily in 258 to protect them during the persecutions of Emperor Valerian (253–60) (Holloway 2004). The persecu­tions of Christians by the state were consis­tently interpreted apocalyptically and historically as manifestations of the secular world unleashing its venom and rage against the spiritual elect, who were hon­ored and even envied for the opportunity to publicly portray their devotion to Christ through the offering of their bodies in imitation of the Passion. Those who survived the attempt on their lives (the confessors) emerged as respected leaders of various communities of Christians, wearing the evidence of their faith in sometimes quite visible ways in their flesh, and drawing support strong enough to enable them to challenge the decisions of local bishops (Hall 2007b). Christian Rome especially benefited by the prestige that the martyrs provided by their resolute resistance to the civil authorities and, for the future organi­zation of the church, the martyrdoms of

Peter, Paul, and other leading Christians challenged the rising and developing episcopacy to love the church like a devoted spouse to the degree that they too needed to be willing to suffer martyrdom on her behalf. Finally, the point here must be emphasized: while the three most impor­tant cities in the empire – Rome, Jerusalem, and Antioch (though we might include also Corinth and others) – could claim association and relationship with Peter, only one city, Rome, could claim that they possessed the body.

THE ORGANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE ANCIENT PATRIARCHATE OF ROME

Modern scholarly debate continues around the time frame of the development of the organization of city-wide Roman Christian leadership, and modern scholars generally believe that that the lineaments of a city-wide monarchical bishopric were retrojected with some hindsight (Hall 2007a). While Christianity came early to Rome, a single city-wide organization did not, and the very earliest Christian commu­nities combined elements of philosophical school, extended household, oriental cult, and social club, and yet refrained from being truly any single one of those options. Recent studies suggest that only after the mid-3rd-century opposition to Pope Corne­lius led by the intellectually gifted presbyter (later anti-pope) Novatian, does the issue of Roman Christian leadership emerge in terms of a series of recognizable central authority figures: papae. Before that time the various and sometimes quite disparate communi­ties were held together in their commitment to being a household of God, a commit­ment that was reflected in the practice of sharing portions of the Eucharist bread among them (Vinzent 2007).

The earliest patristic literature maintains that the position of a monarchical bishop existed in Rome from the time of Peter himself, which reflects the strong desire ofthis patristic generation to set the monar­chical episcopate on a firmer footing. Clement of Rome, a notable leader at the end of the 1st century, reproves the Corinthian church in his Epistle for com­munity instability that culminated in the expulsion of their leadership. Clement advocates the recognition and support of the apostolic foundation and succession of the episcopate, which he asserts is a stabilizing factor for the normative Chris­tian community:

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God’s will.... They preached from district to district, and from city to city, and they appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of the future believers.... Our Apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the title of bishop. For this cause, therefore, since they had received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the codicil that if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. (I Clement 42, 44)

Ignatius of Antioch, also writing at an embryonic time in the Roman church’s developing episcopacy, also consistently raised in each of his letters to Christian communities the motif of the single bishop. Those who are subject to him, Ignatius says, are the ones subject to Jesus Christ himself: “See that you all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father.... Let no one do any of the things appertaining to the Church without the bishop” (Smyrn. 8; Trail. 3.1).

As is the case in the development of any group dynamic, circumstances forged inter­nal doctrinal debates that began to present difficulties first within the communities and then eventually among them. The 2nd- century Shepherd of Hermas, a text consid­ered at one time for inclusion in the New Testament canon, speaks to the elasticity of many elements of the early Roman church, such as how to address the problem of sin committed after baptism. Eventually it was maintained that unity needed to be established and brought under the control of a central figure whose authority was nei­ther ambiguous nor indistinguishable from presbyters. Such leadership would provide a necessary stability in the face of the more charismatic leadership provided by the prophet, martyr, confessor, and teacher. Writing during a time prior to publicly fixed creed or canon, and in opposition to those who maintained a secret oral knowl­edge apart from the gospels, Irenaeus of Lyons insisted that the true gospel was pre­served through faithfulness to an apostolic succession and apostolic tradition that emerged and was witnessed in the churches of apostolic foundation. These were the pil­lars upon which the voice of authority should rest. Hinting at what will later be used to defend the specific issue of Roman primacy, Irenaeus claimed that the truth could be maintained solely in the churches tied to the apostles, and, more specifically, the church in Rome:

Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; is also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the succession of bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere. (Adv. Haer. 3.3.3)

Irenaeus’ late 2nd-century thesis rests in the security of an apostolic foundation and suc­cession that is difficult to correlate exactly with the historical condition of Christian social origins in Rome at that time, a reality in which communities largely man­aged their own local affairs. Nevertheless, Irenaeus himself was said to have journeyed to speak to the “Bishop” of Rome, Victor, on his mission to advocate for the Quartodecimans, and he clearly appeals to the concept of the monarchical bishop as an “apostolic” notion, to serve as a future norm for wider Christian organization. He also calls for Christians to reject inno­vations present in communities struggling with teachers of Gnostic Christology, and advises them to look to the faithful presen­tation of the gospel as it has been preserved in the church of Rome.

In addition to heresy (or internal debate) as an instigation for greater, overarching unity centered on a single apostolic bishop, threats of schism or external challenges to authority must also have prompted the move towards a more cohesive organi­zation. Conflicts such as those waged by Cyprian of Carthage during the course of the mid-3rd-century persecution by Emperor Decius (and threats to do likewise by Emperor Gallus) needed the defense of a strong universal episcopate acting as a singular judge and authority over both individuals and communities (Hall 2007b). Facing division within the church over the restoration of the lapsed in the wake of persecution, the distribution of the sacra­ments at the hands of heretical clergy, and direct challenges to the authority of the bishop by confessors and their supporters, Cyprian made it his life’s work to establish, if not a sole authority, at least a monarchical authority within each location. Distinct from his claim in De unitate ecclesiae that Christ “set up one throne and by his author­ity appointed one source and principle of unity” (Unit. Eccl. 4) (a statement intended not to press for Roman primacy as would be later alleged, but directed against those who resist their bishop), a synod held in Carthage concluded that while Peter was a special symbol of authority, his preemi­nence did not extend to other bishops, but was a “charism” that was passed to every bishop who was “apostolic” (Cyprian, Ep. 69.17); namely the corporate body of bishops in the international Christian com­munity (Hall 2007b).

Like martyrs resisting civil authorities, Roman leaders who resisted doctrinal inno­vations were regarded as particularly meri­torious and therefore worthy of respect and honor. In time, Rome would be regarded as a model of moderation and conventionality, holding firm in the face of theological posi­tions that would eventually be labeled heretical. Organization did not, however, simply emerge in defense of circumstances, but also through the need to respond to human despair in the city. Determined to meet slander head-on with public good works that could stand as evidence to their faithful citizenship for those who might have reason to judge them harshly, and fol­lowing Jewish models of charity, Roman Christians established the practice of providing for the needy within the city. Following the biblical model set by Paul and his collection for the saints in Jerusalem (Rom. 15.25–26), contributions were gath­ered once a week by those in a position to give. Justin Martyr notes a variety of social services to which the Christians attended:

Those who prosper, and who so wish, con­tribute, each one as much as he chooses to. What is collected is deposited with the pres­ident, and he takes care of orphans and widows, and those who are in want on account of sickness or any other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourners among [us], and, briefly, he is the protector of all those in need. (1 Apol. 67.5–6)

And while texts such as the Shepherd of HermaS careful castigation of the wealthy attest to the existence of predictable prob­lems of avarice, nevertheless Clement of Rome writes of those in Rome who “have even given themselves into bondage that they might ransom others” (1 Clem. 55.2). Hippolytus notes the gifts for the sick, the widows, and the “bread for the poor” (Apostolic Tradition 24), and Bishop Corne­lius’ account of the synod of Rome attests to the “more than fifteen hundred widows and distressed persons” (Hist. Eccl. 6.43.11) who were supported by the church. By the end of the 3rd century giving and social programs were so central to the Christian mission at Rome that the need to coordinate charitable activities led, in part, to the need for a greater, city-wide organization. By the 5th century, in the absence of effective civil attention to such matters, the church in Rome was responsible for the care of widows, orphans and minors, prisoners, and public health and sanitation; further, it provided more than social services, for Rome was the logical launching point from which Christianity traveled to many parts of the Roman Empire, including parts of Africa, Spain, and Gaul, all of which looked in time to Rome as a leader and organizer of international Christianity (Dvornik 1966; Hall 2007a; Vinzent 2007; Winter 1994).

When Constantine arrived in Rome in 312, the Christian community there had certainly evolved beyond the early

Jewish-Christian house churches gathered in the Trastevere. In less than 300 years it had been influenced in its organization and identity by the different types of people who embraced Christianity, by the tradi­tions of Peter and Paul, by the resistance of Christians to the violent and public persecutions of the civil government, by the theological positions set up against pagan intellectuals, by Christian social practices, mission programs, resistance to internal heretical strains and schism, and by the rise of the Roman bishops, who were willing to care for, teach, preach to, die for, advise, and sometimes discipline Christian communities both in Rome itself and in various parts of the empire. These factors naturally contributed to the unwill­ingness of Rome to play any lesser role than that of a primary leader of interna­tional affairs in the church, as Christianity entered a new global era.

THE ANCIENT PATRIARCHATE OF ROME IN THE ERA OF CONSTANTINE

The first to favor Christianity so extensively, the Emperor Constantine (ca. 271–337) was apparently anxious (for diverse rea­sons) to incorporate the benefits of Chris­tianity into the fabric ofthe Roman Empire. Social-scientific studies of Christianity estimate that at the time of Constantine’s defeat of Emperor Maxentius in 312 there were approximately 9 million Christians, comprising roughly 15 percent of the pop­ulation (Stark 2006). Neither large enough to pose too great a threat nor small enough to be safely ignored, Christians had become a part of the religious map of empire alongside Judaism, state cults, and eastern mystery cults. After promulgation of the emancipatory Edict of Milan with co-emperor Licinius, Constantine, the emperor in the western portion of the empire, demonstrated a steady interest in the doctrine and organization of Christian­ity, and his imperial generosity greatly enhanced Christianity in Rome. His wife’s palace on the Lateran was donated in 313; he made grants of land to various churches and restitutions, as well as donations to the church of more than 400 pounds of gold per year. He promoted the building in 322 of a monumental church in honor of St. Peter on the Vatican Hill (its cut pillars are still visible in the crypt of St. Peter’s). Clergy also rose in privilege and status both financially and jurisdictionally, becoming, in point of fact, a substructure of the civil administration (Cameron 2007; Holloway 2004). Within a short period of time eccle­siastical courts assumed responsibility for ruling in Christian municipal cases. So inti­mate was Constantine’s involvement with church affairs that in 314, after an appeal by North African bishops, he appointed arbitrators headed by Miltiades, the bishop of Rome, to investigate the disturbance in the African church caused by Donatism and tensions among clergy in Carthage. It is noteworthy, however, that although the bishop of Rome headed this first inter­province council in the West, the Emperor did not take his pronouncement on the matter as final, for he called a second council the following year, which the cur­rent Pope Sylvester did not attend, though legates did. Pope Sylvester’s legates also attended the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea, held in 325, where they were the first among all the bishops present to sign their names to the acts of the synod in agreement with the Nicene faith (Kelly 1996).

The transfer of the capital city of the empire from Rome to Constantinople in 324 altered the relationship between Rome and the other major eastern ecclesiastical centers in Antioch, and Alexandria. But while the site of the imperial residence and center of power had shifted, the “apostolic” status of Rome had not, and probably this challenge to its centrality contributed to the development by the Roman bishops of the theologoumenon of papal primacy, a doctrine that increasingly emerged in the latter half of the first millennium.

CLAIMS FOR PAPAL PRIMACY IN POST-CONSTANTINIAN ROME

The doctrine of papal primacy is dependent on acceptance of the three claims that Peter was the “prince” among the apostles, that he was the first “bishop” in Rome, and that he transferred to the leading authorities in the Roman Christian community only the authority which he received from Christ. The passage upon which this latter claim is dependent is Matthew 16.18–19. After Peter answers Jesus’ question about his identity correctly with the confession that Jesus is “the Messiah, the son of the living God” (Mt. 16.16), Jesus’ response to this admis­sion of faith is “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Anastos 2001). Later inscribed in Greek around the base of the dome of St. Peter’s in Rome, this passage was employed by Pope Callistus I in the early 3rd century as justification for a single papal (papae) decision on penance (De Pudicitia 1.6; 21.9), his understanding of which was vigorously contested by his opponent Hippolytus (Kelly 1996).

The church in the eastern provinces never contested Peter’s signal symbolic importance for the city of Rome, but the problem that emerged in the relationship between the various sees was the question of the (honorific) primacy of the ancient patriarchate of Rome as distinct from eccle­siastical jurisdiction over the others. For the eastern churches, the organizing ele­ment of church jurisdiction was not so much an apostolic origin but rather how church government could be accommo­dated to the political regulation of the empire. This principle of conforming to civic administrative boundaries was sanc­tioned in Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325), as well as in Canons 2 and 3 of the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381), and it was upheld in the Synod of Antioch, and referenced by Pope Boniface (PL 20.773), who forbade metropolitans to exercise authority in other than their own provinces; as well as by Pope Innocent I (PL 20.548) (Anastos 2001).

The question of accommodation versus primacy deserves a longer treatment than can be offered here, but there are a few things worth noting. First, accommodation, which is also understood as an apostolic institution, was merely a natural outgrowth of the new social circumstances of a Chris­tianized empire. Economic, social, judicial, and political life is naturally focused in any diocese on a central or capital city, and accordingly the bishop of that city would have to be a man of particular strength and character in order to meet the needs of the populace. It is understandable that over time the pri­mary bishops of central cities in the empire would see themselves as more important than bishops in smaller, more backward towns, thus the origin of the concept of metropolitan archbishops. This applies all the more to the case of Rome because Rome was the central city of the empire, and not only was it “apostolic” in multiple ways, but it was the primary residence of the emperor. When the latter ceased to be the case, espe­cially when Constantine shifted the capital to Constantinople, Rome remained apos­tolic but was no longer primary. Second, even though the Eastern Churches made attempts to advance a literary tradition lauding the apostolic foundation of Con­stantinople (mainly originating after the construction of the Church of the Holy Apostles as a shrine for the relics of St. Andrew), nevertheless the roots of this principle were never deep (Anastos 2001). What mattered more to the Eastern Churches than a historically provable apos­tolic foundation of any see was the more compelling belief that all sees were apostolic by virtue of correct “apostolic” doctrine, maintained by the succession of legitimate teaching bishops.

Second-millennium focus on the con­flicts between the sees of Constantinople and Rome has overshadowed the many years of concord that existed between these two preeminent patriarchates. Nevertheless, differences in language and culture added to the mix of things that brought about increasing liturgical and theological discord between the two sees. Because the political position of accommodation to civic borders in the eastern portions of the empire was of greater importance than the Roman theologoumenon of special apostolic status, the fathers of the Council of Constantino­ple (381) were happy enough to establish Canon 3 in their deliberations, which gave the bishop of Constantinople second rank in the ecclesiastical hierarchy because it was the “New Rome.” While this pre­served the honorific rights of Old Rome, it was seen as a natural result of the shift of the imperial residence to Constantinople, and an important safeguard against the aspirations of Alexandria (Anastos 2001; Dvornik 1966). The whole process of the rise of Constantinople to ecclesiastical eminence was bitterly resisted by Rome at first. Soon after the Council of Chalce- don (451), Pope Leo I declared its Canon 28 (which had just ratified Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople) to be invalid (Kelly 1996). Canons that were anti­Roman in character from the Constanti- nopolitan Council in Trullo (692) did not do much to ease relations between the sees, nor did Emperor Leo III and Pope Gregory II’s late 8th-century dispute over images and taxes during the period of the first Iconoclastic Controversy (Noble 2009); nor Charlemagne’s coronation on Christmas Day in 800 by Pope Leo III as Imperator Romanorum; nor the formal con­demnation of Patriarch Photios in 863 by Pope Leo III (Anastos 2001). By the time of Photios’ patriarchate, both Constantinople and the patriarchate of Rome functioned as largely independent sees, and the eventual fracture of the pentarchy was in process, accelerated by disputes over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in “new” Christian territories. Photios was one of the first patriarchs of Constantinople to entertain serious doubts over the continuing orthodoxy of Rome, not simply on matters of wider doctrine (the filioque issue), but also on the basis of the papal claims to special primacy as manifesting a form of ecclesiology not in harmony with the wider sentiment of the Eastern Churches. Growing fractures and theological differences were to come to a head as the tide of Islam pressured the East­ern Churches more and more, and Rome’s papal monarchy rose to political prece­dence. The Crusades (especially the Fourth) left a lasting damage in relations; more so perhaps than the notional date of schism between the two patriarchates of 1054.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ANCIENT PATRIARCHATE OF ROME FOR ORTHODOXY TODAY

In October 2008 Pope Benedict XVI, the current leader of the world’s more than 1 billion Roman Catholics, received as his guest in Vatican City the Ecumenical

Patriarch Bartholomew I, and prayed with him in the Sistine Chapel. The two, who met together four times since the election of Pope Benedict, seemed eager for a con­tinuing ecumenical dialogue in a world fractured by religious strife. The ecumenical patriarch described the service in the famous Sistine Chapel as a “joyous experi­ence of unity, perhaps not perfect, but true and deep.” While the place of the papal primacy among Christian hierarchs con­tinues to be a strongly divisive and inflam­matory aspect of the larger divisions between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, nevertheless, both pope and patriarch are to be lauded for their willing­ness to work together for unity on wider church issues that can legitimately be undertaken in a spirit of Christian open­ness. If their joint works can contribute towards the healing of a planet that groans under the weight of significant social, eco­logical, and political challenges, it will be a blessing not only for Christianity, but even for the world at large.

SEE ALSO: Alexandria, Patriarchate of; Anti­och, Patriarchate of; Constantinople, Patri­archate of; Iconoclasm; Jerusalem, Patriarchate of; Pentarchy; St. Constantine the Emperor (ca. 271–337); St. Photios the Great (ca. 810-ca. 893)

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Anastos, M. V. (2001) “Constantinople and Rome: A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches,” in S. Vryonis, Jr. and N. Goodhue (eds.) Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium: Political Theory, Theology and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome, vol. 8. Aldershot: Ashgate/Variorum, pp. 1–119. Brown, R. E. and Meier, J. P. (1983) Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Cameron, A. (2007) “Constantine and the ‘Peace of the Church’,” in M. M. Mitchell and F. M. Young (eds.) The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 538–51.

Dvornik, F. (1966) Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York: Fordham University Press.

Hall, S. G. (2007a) “Institutions in the pre- Constantinian Ecclesia,” in M. M. Mitchell and F. M. Young (eds.) The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 414–33.

Hall, S. G. (2007b) “Ecclesiology in the Wake of Persecutions,” in M. M. Mitchell and F. M. Young (eds.) The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 470–83.

Holloway, R. R. (2004) Constantine and Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jeffers, J. S. (1991) Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meeks, W. A. (1993) The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Meyendorff, J. (1996) Rome Constantinople Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Noble, T. F. X. (2009) Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. Pittsburgh: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Stark, R. (2006) Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome. San Francisco: Harper One.

Vinzent, M. (2007) “Rome,” in M. M. Mitchell and F. M. Young (eds.) The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 397–412.

Winter, B. W. (1994) Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.